There is an ongoing need to address public safety concerns regarding the accidental, intentional, or natural release of contaminants from potentially hazardous materials, for example, radiation, chemicals, poisons, biological agents, and the like. While sophisticated sensing devices are available to detect such contaminants, it is important that the operators of these devices be properly trained in the use of the devices, without exposing the operators to possible contamination during operational training of these devices. Therefore, it is preferable that an operator be trained in a non-hazardous environment that simulates the detection of the contaminants, but that the operator not be exposed to potentially hazardous radioactive, chemical, or biological contamination.
Conventional hazardous material detection simulation systems often include a simulated detector, such as a training probe, that receives hanuless signals, for example, radiofrequency (RF) signals or signals emitted from harmless substances, such as magnets or metallic substances, that simulate gases, vapors, or radiation from a contaminated surface. The simulated detector measures the received signals from the source and outputs the signals to a meter display, wherein the meter readings are studied by an operator trainee under the supervision of an instructor.
Other conventional training systems can include a control unit instead of a live source, which transmits a signal to a simulated detector, which responds to the signal as if it was detecting an actual source of contamination. The signal provided by the control unit includes data that simulates a dose rate or contamination level that is controlled by a control unit operator or instructor. This data is transmitted by the control unit to the simulated detector, and also to a meter, where an operator trainee takes readings of measurements.
The ability of these training systems to simulate a realistic response of the simulated detector to surface contamination depends largely on the skills of the control unit operator, since the operator needs to continually monitor the location of the simulated detector relative to a surface over which the detector is positioned, and needs to manually change the contamination level on the control unit to account for changes in its proximity to the surface. Thus, if the distance between the detector and the surface changes, and if the operator does not adjust the control unit signal to accommodate for the change in distance, the meter may not display accurate readings, since, in “real life” environments, the contamination level may be different depending on the distance to the surface. Further, it is difficult to train the operator trainee to position a detector at a proper orientation and distance from the surface when performing a survey of the surface. Accordingly, the simulation may not be realistic to the operator trainee, which may affect the quality of the training received by the operator trainee.